Who are the false professors?

Maybe he is.

:laugh:

 

You have decided not just to read what I say but determine "my" intent. The attempt to MIND READ is practically forbidden in Scripture, never mind being wrong.

I know my intents, you do not, stick with what I have said, not what you think I have said.

I refer only to those that "believe" just as the text did. You and whomever else want to INJECT "profess" which is not present.

The text in Luke treats those that "believe" the gospel as coming to life and the one that did not believe was not saved. There is nothing there about "professing". You are imposing on the text and my argument, an element that are not there. I make the distinction clearly and concisely between professing and believing and the text only deals with believing and that is what I am dealing with.

I expect, if one wants to be taken seriously regarding their position that if they cannot provide a hermeneutically/exegetically based refutation then they need to put their flotation devices back on and stay in the shallow end.

When you can treat the text with some degree of expertise and argue from that point, then the appeal to other texts may have weight. Until then you are only revealing that you cannot and wish only to escape the reasonable and mature expectation for a refutation by running to another text.

Mind you, the text you posted I can handle just as easily, but we began with Luke and when your hermeneutical/exegetical argument is posted then secondary texts can be dealt with.

 

What is your point?

 

My response was geared towards...

regardless of what life they live in evidence of it.

 

You might try visiting the shallow end some of the time...... it may keep you from drowning.

 

I must be dull. I still don't get it.

 

**Post deleted**

Moderator warning: Rudeness is "unbecoming" of a Christian who is worthy of the Lord Jesus Christ!!

Please post in accordance with the conduct of our coming Lord Jesus!

 

Do you have a father? Did he teach you common decency and respect? If not, i'd be happy to give you some lessons. You need to get a grip on your emotions. I'll stop here and get a grip on mine.

 

Alex, you have been reported. Just wanted you to know.

 

For the record, I am not an Arminian, I have made that abundantly clear and reject Arminianism. And in case your conscience is subject to a higher power, I am sure from this point on you will be lead to respect that, if of course it is influenced by something other than you own need to try and sound clever.

While you ask questions, you obviously don't have any. "Believe for a while" represents the limited period of growth as noted by Jesus. It "SPRUNG UP" and as our Lord made clear it whithered. But I dealt with the text in detail and of course you didn't. You are busy making investments in asking questions you cannot answer and resenting real answers.

 

Oh so you are reporting to me that you reported me. I see. I understand. When you have no answers in a debate one option is always to try and find a way to silence the opposition.

 

So if you don't really care then all this posturing was for?????

You are contradicting yourself here. Your posture was quite dogmatic and suddenly you don't care?

I don't claim anything. I have challenged you to deal with the text. This is a debate forum. You are ceding here. I accept that.

There are unfruitful believers, the text in Luke makes that clear and it remains UNTOUCHED, UNREFUTED and only complained about.

 

The only group that yielded a crop was the one where the seed fell on the good soil. And that group did yield a crop, but not all yielded the same amount.


Show us scripture that says that some born again believers do NOT yield any fruit.

 

Maybe this tidbit from Isaiah40 will help...

Teaching that there are "unfruitful believers" is a dangerous lie that does nothing edifying for the church of God.

Again...Lot?

 

That isn't what is being debated. No one is debating who the fruitful believers are. Good grief, is there ANYONE here that can follow an argument anymore?

 

Lot? You said Job at first.

Anyway, where does it say that Lot was unfruitful? Unfruitful means NO fruit, not some fruit.

 

I did? Oops. No wonder you had no idea what I was talking about, I obviously didn't either. Brain cramp